Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTHE GROVE AT FORT COLLINS - PDP - 16-10B - CORRESPONDENCE - CORRESPONDENCE-HEARING (13)Page 3 of 4 2. Renewable Energy —some Councilmembers will be looking for implementation actions related to efficiencies and conservation and "getting our pricing right" before we seriously consider other types of actions and initiatives. 3. Transportation Update —the order of the sub -items is to be: a. Capital Project Update b. KFCG Project Update c. MAX/BRT Update (including station design update and South Transit Center final design) d. Transfort Updates: South Fixed Route and DAR; Advertising Issues Also, the Leadership Team requested that information for "a" and "b" above be taped along w/the planned taping for Transfort items. Also Darin or the Mayor will mention that information about the capital and KFCG projects is available via Cable 14 video archives for the public that may be interested in a more detailed update. OTHER ITEMS City Capital/Facility Project Designs/Wendy Williams and Ken Mannon—staff is asked to describe how we are going to institutionalize Council's participation in reviewing the designs of significant community capital facilities (such as the Lincoln Center renovation; Museum/Discovery Science Center; MAX BRT stations; South Transit Center; etc.) For example, have Council review at the conceptual stage (say at 20% of design) and mid -way (say at 50% design) or a stage where they can still effect some change. Consider bringing a recommendation to either ELT or SIT. [Note: This relates to a followup item from the July 5, 2011 Leadership Team Followup: Building & Project Designs for City Facilities/Ken Marmon —for City facility projects (e.g., Lincoln Center renovation) who approves/signs off on the designs and materials, particularly the exteriors? It seems that some designs and information about the layout, materials, signage, etc. of some construction projects comes to the Leadership Team and/or City Council. What is our system or process for determining when to bring this type of information to Council and when does staff proceed and make such decisions. Debra/Wendyplease treat as a SAR and send the draft response to Darin and Wendy W before it goes out.) 2. The Grove/Steve OR and Carrie Daggett —Mayor Pro Tern Ohlson received an email from a citizen claiming that the way in which the decision is worded to ensure LEED certification and banning cats and dogs except for bonafide service animals, will not result in what Council intended. Please double check the wording and provide a response regarding if the wording matches Council's intent. Debra/Wendy—please treat as a SAR. 3. Cross walk at LaPorte/Walnut and College/Joe Olson and Darin Atteberry--Council received the SAR response. While Councilmembers understand the reasoning from a safety and engineering perspective, the public continues to use the shorter distance between "Starbucks" and La Luz comers as a crossing. Further, the way in which the sidewalks and access have been configured, they channel pedestrians and handicapped persons (wheelchairs) to use the "direct" crossing vs. the formally marked one. Staff (Joe and Darin) are to have another look. 4. Park City Delegation & Saturday BBQ/CPIO—it was a great, enjoyable and well done event. It was suggested that we consider water and ice tea along w/sodas for beverages; to the extent possible use green approaches and table ware and do as much recycling and composting as possible. Also, a pair of sunglasses was left at the BBQ Saturday —if anyone finds them, please contact Linda Stanley. 5. Fort Collins -San Cristobal, Mexico/Ginny Sawyer, Sarah Kane and Diane Jones —following a meeting 9/13/2011 Page 2 of 4 comparisons of the tax increment request and the percentages the requests represent. ➢ Slides #36, #37, #38—it is unclear as to what #36 means in relation to #37 and #38; why are they broken apart? Please be prepared to explain. f. What happens if only a portion of the anticipated TIF revenue is actually generated? So, for example, if an $8 million TIF commitment is made for a particular project and only $5 million of TIF revenue is realized; who "owns" the liability and how is the commitment to the owner/developer satisfied? g. AIS, Page 5. The Construction Waste Management Plan addresses both demolition as well as new construction. This is clarified later in the documents; just a reminder to staff to be sure to refer to both when we refer to and describe actions related to a construction waste management plan. h. This is a general URA question. An Urban Renewal District is created. Some projects generate TIF revenues and request a portion of the TIF proceeds to cover public improvements for the project. For other projects (redevelopment and new development) that don't request any TIF support but will create more property taxes based on the improvements, where do the increased tax revenues go —to the URA and TIF "pool" or to the various public entities as they would have if not in an Urban Renewal District? Please provide information for items b, c, d, f, and h and send this to Sarah Kane for inclusion in the "Read Before" folder for the Council meeting. 2. Electric Rate Options/Brian Janonis, Patty Bigner, Steve Catanach, Bill Switzer—Councilmember Horak's concerns center on two aspects: (a) process (working with the affected interests related to residential as well as commercial) and (b) phasing options and timing for implementation. Also, Council received a memo from Kevin Cross (need to make sure staff gets a copy of this memo/email). Kevin describes an option with 5 steep tiers and another with 3 moderate tiers. Why not have some combination or an option with 5 moderate tiers? Staff is asked to be prepared to discuss such options. 3. North I-25 Final EIS/Kathleen Bracke—this item is likely to be heard later in the evening. The Leadership Team asked staff to please make sure that CDOT staff knows that they are not expected to attend this work session. Staff can send them a Cable TV clip or direct link to this portion of the discussion so they are aware of the Council's questions and comments in preparation for the September 20 Council meeting. For many of the staff recommendations, will be asking that the wording that is submitted to CDOT be more assertive. For example, on Page 6 of the AIS, 2°d bullet, last sentence it was suggested rewording: "Staff requests that CDOT delete these elements...." There are a number of items that we say "consider" or something similar and Council will ask that these be worded more assertively and directly. SEPTEMBER 20 COUNCIL MEETING #26 Staff Reports/Kim Newcomer —this Council meeting (light discussion agenda) is a good meeting for a couple of "Good News" items. Please provide the City Manager w/suggestions. SEPTEMBER 27 WORK SESSION 1. The order of the items will be: a. Engines Lab b. GoCo Poudre River c. Transportation Update d. Renewable Energy 9/13/2011 Page 1 of 4 Steve Olt From: Diane Jones Sent: Monday, September 12, 2011 11:56 PM To: Christina Vincent; Megan Bolin; Josh Jones; Bruce Hendee; Mike Beckstead; Brian Janonis; Patty Bigner; Steve Catanach; Bill Switzer; Kathleen Bracke; Joe Frank; Karen Cumbo; Kelly DiMartino; Kim Newcomer; Martin Heffernan; John Stokes; Mark Jackson; Helen Migchelbrink; Erika Keeton; Marlys Sittner; Ken Mannon; Steve Olt; Steve Dush; Joe Olson; Ginny Sawyer; Josh Jones; Claire Thomas Cc: Darin Atteberry; Carrie Daggett; Wanda Krajicek; Wendy Williams; Sarah Kane; Debra Unger; Wendy Bricher; Sara Gonzales; Tauny Gilmore Subject: Leadership Team Followup: September 12, 2011 These are the follow-up items from today's Leadership Team meeting (Mayor, Mayor Pro Tem, City Manager, Deputy City Attorney, City Clerk, Assistant City Manager and Deputy City Manager). SEPTEMBER 13 WORK SESSION 1. Capstone ProjectlChristina Vincent, Megan Bolin and Josh Birks—several elements to be prepared to address at the meeting: a. In relation to the amount of TIF that Capstone is seeking, the concem/question has modified somewhat from one related to the amount or percentage of the total TIF to be generated (i.e., 88%) to the amount of TIF requested for each of the infrastructure improvements. For example, if potable water mains are required for this project, what is the basic requirement of the City's code and what is that cost. If the project is doing something "extra" related to potable water mains and that cost (over and above the basic requirement) is say $100,000, then requesting that the TIF cover some portion (50%; 75%??) of that "extra" would be acceptable to consider. Another example is related to the stormwater requirements. What is the range of cost for the basic stormwater requirements for this project and what are the costs for the enhancements or extra stormwater elements proposed for the project? Again, the TIF monies might be pledged to cover a portion of the enhancements. b. In the current proposal, is the request for use of TIF monies to cover any of the elements for obtaining LEED certification? Regarding LEED certification, there are several contradictions regarding the pursuit of LEED certification —on one hand it states in the AIS that LEED certification is a goal and that the LEED checklist has been used; then in an attachment it is stated that Capstone is not pursuing LEED certification at the encouragement of staff to use green/sustainable building techniques without the additional expense of pursuing certification (Attachment 1, Item I). Staff may be asked about the contradictions. c. What is the status of the project related to the Ctity's Development Review process? d. There was an earlier question related to the bike racks —how many we require and how many will be installed as part of the project. The question for the meeting is: when will staff be working on and presenting an update to the requirements for bike parking facilities in relation to development projects? e. Attachment #4 (slides): ➢ Slides #29 and #30 don't "match." Under "Financial Facts" in #29, it refers to a $35 million construction loan; Slide #30 shows a $30 million loan and a $5 million URA contribution. ➢ Slide #34 is "interesting" in terns of the contrast between the 2008 Plan and the 2011 Plan (and the 9/13/2011